Agenda - 04-19-2005-9b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16' Transportation Funding John Hodges-Copple supplied a handout which summarized funding issues related to the Regional Transportation Strategy, 2030 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Transportation Plans, and revenue sources that have been discussed over the past few years to meet transportation funding needs in the Triangle (copies of the handout are available from TJCOG). He also passed out an article on recent funding issues in North Carolina related to the equity formula which is likely to result in less funding for the Triangle than has been expected. Ellen Reckhow noted that NCDOT made a presentation to the TTA boazd on the statewide transportation plan which identified $84 billion in statewide needs and $SS billion in anticipated revenue to meet the needs. She indicated that the statewide plan would focus state priorities on such issues as maintenance of the existing system and the highest-order roads, continuing the concern in the region that crucial secondary roads will not receive needed funding.. Joe Bryan reported that the Wake County Board took action on the funding issue, stating its intent that any levy of abroad-based tax such as a general sales tax should allow caunties to use the proceeds for any purpose.. He remarked that any broad-based taxes should address Quality-of--Life Infrastructure, with mobility, schools and parks/open space being top capital needs, Ellen Reckhow noted that she has advocated a similar position, that any increase in a general sales tax should go to schools as well as transportation. Mr. Bryan reported that he met with leaders of the Wake County legislative delegation, Ms. Weiss and Mr. Stevens, and that they thought local leaders should have low expectations for legislative action to increase local options.. Ms. Reckhow indicated that she has had similazly disappointing feedback from members of the Durham delegation. Mr. Link said he was concerned about jumping into a local option funding issue without a better understanding of the expectations of who fmances what between the state and local communities, especially as counties have not had a direct role in transportation funding and projects since the Depression. He would like to see some connectivity between local and state action on funding, feazing that the state may not hold up its end of the bargain, but transfer more money out of the region. Mr. Bryan suggested three principles related to local option funding for transportation, if to be levied at the county level: 1. Any broad-based revenue source, such as an increase in the general sales tax, should be allowed to be used to address the full spectrum of Infrastructure for Quality-of--life for which counties are responsible. 2. Any new local option funding needs to be part of an explicit state/local -partnership to improve mobility in the region; local increased support can not be met with state decreased support. 3. The business community needs to be the cleaz leaders in advocating for the change, notjust playing a supportive or neutral role. Ms. Reckhow sought clarification that the wider use of new revenues for infrastructure applied to any broad-based revenues, but that any transportation-oriented revenue streams, such as fuel taxes or vehicle license fees, could be targeted to transportation. Mr. Bryan concurred. Sanford Cross noted that the Urban Mobility Study Commission has been extended to May and will meet in February, where funding will be discussed. Action Item: TJCOG will draft a letter far signature by the three county commission chairs outlining the concerns of the commissioners over funding, focusing on the three principles ofbroader use of general revenue streams for infrastructure, atrue state/local partnership to address mobility, and business community leadership. The draft will be circulated to the three chairs and their managers and,